The Inanities of “Bipartisanship” and “Governing From the Center”

Ben Stein made some provocative comments on the Sunday morning talk shows recently, suggesting that Barack Obama was the “ideal” GOP candidate. As laughable as that claim is on its face, I think the reasoning behind it has a lot to say about our current political culture.

First, the laughability. Of course Obama would never run as a member of the GOP. He’s a Democrat! But of course Ben Stein knows that. Here’s what he means:

Since the election of 2010, he is clearly moving in the direction of the Republican Party. He has completely signed on to the Republican position on tax cuts and kicking the deficit can down the road.

Long since he signed onto the Bush position on the war in Afghanistan, he’s now swearing he will do something about government spending, even if it angers his most basic constituency, the government employee unions.

To this one could add Obama’s support for indefinite detention, signing statements, giving up on closing GuantĆ”namo, and secret relinquishing of the public option to get insurers to back health care reform.

In effect, Stein argues that Obama has moved so far to the right as to become, for all intents and purposes, a moderate Republican. If he were to switch parties, he would win re-election by a landslide, as no Democrat would oppose him and there are no Republicans nearly as popular to challenge him.

All right, I find the last two parts a bit much, but you get the point: that Obama is not a real, full, or true Democrat, and much more like a moderate Republican.

Obama a Republocrat?
Now the outrageousness. Is that claim really so outlandish? Not if you take the President at his word with regard to his claims to bipartisanship and aiming to govern from the center.

What is bipartisanship? Luckily, we have the emergence of a new chatting and ruling class to tell us. It’s motto is “a pox on both parties!” and its goal is the collapse of political differences in the name of pragmatism (“getting things done”).

Along the way, these folks have a job to do. They have to convince you that the principles you believe in, those that might have motivated you to vote for this candidate over another, are illusory, trivial, meaningless, or even dangerous, as no political progress is possible so long as you hold them.

This is the mantra of “third way” or “no labels” movements. They’d like you to believe that they have found the political philosophers’ stone that turns the dross of partisanship into the pure gold of legislation.

And all you have to do is forget you were ever a member of any party or believed in any damn thing at all.

Ending Partisanship by Killing Principles
They trumpet the end of bickering and the beginning of “getting things done.” Cliches like “working together” and “reaching out across the aisle” are similar ultrasonic whistles, alongside the ubiquitous “compromise.”

Of course all this operates by way of a particular sleight of hand. Partisanship must be detached from any association with principles or “principled” and instead tied immutably in the electoral conscience with intransigence and gridlock.

If you’re a Republican, it’s called obstructionism. If you’re a Democrat, it’s called idealism. The new mavens of civility accord each of these positions moral and political equivalence precisely in order to distinguish themselves from the “partisan” herd.

Irony? In order to carve out identities for themselves as the new conciliators, restorers of civility, and bringers of harmony, they collapse the difference between the parties and devalue what each party stands for.

Lost is any notion of a principled partisanship, proud of principles, and fully willing to compromise, but as a means, not an end. Lost is the notion that partisanship contributes to the political culture by providing clear boundaries (that any rational person is free to question, modify, or reject) without which our conversation becomes meaningless chatter about the best way to accomplish goals that keep changing because our ideals keep changing.

Or worse: change depending on the person who’s telling you they have no ideals whatsoever other than “getting things done.” This is why I think one of the most insidious forms of ideology is the one that pretends to be its opposite.

A Fatal Flaw
And here lies what, for me, is the fatal flaw of our new “centrists.” On the one hand, bipartisanship is held out as this great political ideal and virtue. This suggests that pragmatism ought to trump party differences.

Let’s say we all agree and we give these new heroes the parade they demand. But if this is the case, then why should a voter pull a level for a D as opposed to an R (or a G)? If our elected officials truly believe party differences are getting in the way of “getting things done,” then don’t they also relinquish any right to run, during election time, as representatives of any side other than:

The middle?

The great, big, vast, vacuous and meaningless middle? Here there are no inconveniences like ideals to reconcile with the passion for accomplishing anything at all, so long as it’s something. Here, ideals don’t just corrupt the finished product, they make it impossible, so out the window they go.

This is the political model of new “no labels” civility: the politician who denounces partisanship and works to collapse the effective differences between the parties but asks, at election time, that you remember what jersey they’re wearing and vote accordingly.

“Vote for the candidate who’s better at collapsing the political differences that their electoral fortunes depend on.”

So what’s the answer? May I suggest a politics doesn’t take an antiseptic approach to partisanship but embraces it, and doesn’t oppose it in knee-jerk fashion to civility?

One that speaks from principle, rather than against it? And one that demonstrates, by example, that you don’t have to check your values at the door in order to get things done in and for this great nation of ours?


3 thoughts on “The Inanities of “Bipartisanship” and “Governing From the Center”

  1. Amen. And *crush* ;o) joking aside, I agree, what does this principled partisanship look like? When did we last see it? I know we Americans hate History, and maybe I’ve lost too many brain cells but I can’t seem to remember. Enlighten please.

    1. I think we see it in those moments when politicians speak sincerely about who they are, what they believe in, and why they’re doing what they’re doing in a manner that doesn’t demonize opponents.

      This isn’t to say differences won’t be pointed or disappointing, just that they’re real and that we don’t have to pretend they’re false or bad in order to be civil.

      It’s a little like people claiming to be completely blind with respect to gender or race, as if to suggest any awareness of such things implied bigotry. We don’t have to pretend to be middlers in order to get along and/or get things done.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s